Friday, April 15, 2011

Both Houses in Arizona Pass First Presidential Vetting and Eligibility Bill

By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.April 15, 2011

Arizona has become the first state in the nation to pass a presidential vetting and eligibility bill.

Yesterday in the Senate at 20-9 and tonight by 40 - 16 (with 4 not voting) in the House of Representatives, the bill was passed.

It is now time to start calling Governor Brewer's office. This may need verification, but she has 5 days (possibly as much as 10 but no more than that) to sign it. If she does not sign it at all, the bill becomes law. The only way the bill will not become law is if she vetoes it.

41
comments:

Breaking News rec'd from Jeff Lichter, Tea Party Leader in AZ, who has been actively working tirelessly on this effort in AZ for many months.

Bravo Zulu to Jeff Lichter and all the supporters and defenders of the U.S. Constitution in AZ.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ARIZONA IS FIRST STATE IN THE COUNTRY TO PASS AN ELIGIBILITY BILL !!!!!!!!!!

Yesterday in the Senate at 20-9 and Tonight By 40 - 16 - and 4 not voting in the House of Representatives. I believe that every Republican on both sides of the aisle were YES votes. Awesome.

It's time now to start calling Governor Brewer's office. This may need verification and re-checking, but I believe she has 5days (possibly as much as 10 but no more than that) to sign it. If she doesn't sign it at all, it becomes law. The only way it does not is if she vetoes it.

WOW!!!!! NOW COME ON OKLAHOMA, MISSOURI AND EVERYONE ELSE. IF ANY OF YOU HAVE CONTACTS IN THESE STATES LET THEM KNOW RIGHT AWAY THAT ARIZONA DID IT AND TO USE THAT TO HELP THEM DO IT. THANKS AND GOOD NIGHT.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And I am still concerned if they would really ask the long form birth certificate of Obama and, more importantly of all, check thoroughly this long form birth certificate for forgery and if it is really based on facts at the hospital (receipts of payment for the birth at the hospital, etc.).

Why checking the long form birth certificate? Because, by now, Obama has got already one that is probably a forgery for parts of it at least.

1. It requires only the presidential candidate to submit a birth certificate. There is no specific requirement that the vice-presidential candidate submit a birth certificate.

2. There is no definition of natural born citizen, and without such a definition, the efficacy of the bill becomes problematic.

(Upper case in original bill.)THE NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEE SHALL SUBMIT AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN WHICH THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE STATES THE CANDIDATE'S CITIZENSHIP AND AGE AND SHALL APPEND TO THE AFFIDAVIT DOCUMENTS THAT PROVE THAT THE CANDIDATE IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, PROVE THE CANDIDATE'S AGE AND PROVE THAT THE CANDIDATE MEETS THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AS PRESCRIBED IN ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES

The words do say that an affidavit must be submitted to prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen. Without a specific definition of NBC will the Secretary of State even be cognizant of the need to seek the citizenship status of the candidate's parents?

Some believe that the Arizona bill does not appropriately address the "natural born Citizen" requirement. This is not true.

First, we have to understand that sometimes compromises are needed in order to make something work. Clearly, this current bill is much better than not having anything at all in place which is what happened with the 2008 election.

Second, the Arizona bill says that the presidential candidate must be a “natural born Citizen.” It does not say that he or she must be a “citizen.”

It will be up to the Secretary of State to apply the constitutional definition of a “natural born Citizen,” just like the SOS must determine if the candidate is at least 35 years old and has been a resident of the U.S. for a minimum of 14 years.

Also, the law gives a citizen of Arizona standing to contest the decision of the Secretary of State.

I have been working hard on moving forward the presidential eligibility bill in PA for the past several months, as well in other states. Rep Metcalfe with a couple dozen co-sponsors introduced PA HB1350 this week. I am meeting with a PA rep next week to continue working on getting more co-sponsors and get this bill passed. If we can get a bill passed into law in PA, a state that Obama won last time, and a state he cannot afford to write-off the electoral votes and hope to win, this will be a dramatic game changer. AZ has lead the way. I believe many other states will now join the process to protect our liberty and constitution and due what the cowardly and negligent Congress has avoided doing for almost 3 year ... vet the constitutionally eligibility of Obama. At Obama's and Hillary's feet in the Judiciary Committee in April 2008 they vetted McCain ... but the same committee refused to vet Obama.

Times are a changing. The truth will come out. The main stream media and the Congress have been keeping a cone of silence on this for 3 years. But the cracks in the glass ceiling are showing on this issue. The truth and the Constitution will win the day in the end. Obama's days of fraud and deceit are coming to an end. I look forward to the day he does the perp walk for committing the biggest election fraud and identity theft operation in world history ... or in other words ... treason against the U.S. Constitution. The day of reckoning is coming.

People need to call Governor Jan Brewer and employ her to either sign the bill or allow it pass by default. This is extremely critical and will be a gamechanger. Mario, please post all contact information for Governor Jan Brewer.

Mr. Apuzzo said:Also, the law gives a citizen of Arizona standing to contest the decision of the Secretary of State.

Regardless of what happens with the eligiblity bill in Arizona (I do believe it will become law), as an Arizona resident I have always wanted to challenge an ineligible candidate's placement on the ballot if it became necessary to do so.

As things now stand, I feel there is a high probability that this would be necessary due to the lack of clarity regarding the definition of natural born citizen. The avalanche of commentary focusing on the birth certificate and birth on U.S. soil without regard for the citizenship status of the parents leads me to this conclusion. It seems no one even bothers to ask the question, "What is a natural born citizen?" Witness the approach of Donald Trump.

The problem I have is that I feel I will need a knowledgeable and sympathetic constitutional attorney and I will not be able to affford one.

Regardles of whether eligibility bills pass in other states (I am cautiously optimistic that they will), it seems that the next step in the process is to challenge Obama's placement on the ballot in as many states as possible.

If it can be stipulated that Article II, as written just after the Revolutionary War, barred sons of British subjects eligibility to the presidency, unless "United States citizens at the time of adoption of this constitution," then it is moot that Barack Hussein Obama is not eligible to the presidency.

However, pro-Obama activists rely on a 'natural born citizen' being those who are:

1) 'native-born citizens,' as the 14th Amendment was bastardized by Horace Gray in Wong Kim Ark, and/or2) born of a U.S. citizen mother, due to changes in naturalization law in the 1920's.

Obvious to us, applying these conditions to Article II is, essentially, an unconstitutional Amendment to the constitution.

A 'natural born citizen' has no alienage at birth, requiring naturalization law to dealienage the child at birth, and later when reaching the age of majority.

Make sure to pay strict attention to the time limit given in state statutes to file an action in state court to contest any ballot or election issue. Normally, state statutes do not provide many days for the filing of such complaints.

Someone should do a chart of all the States and publish it so that people will know what the time limits in each state are.

O'Reilly Scrubbed Audio and His Lying About the Obama SSN has now been Now Found. Listen to the end of this YouTube audio clip - O'Reilly's Scrubbed Remark On Obama's Social Security Number - 4/15/11http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxkEg7FVQBo

Also see full color, full page ad about the SSN fraud by Obama in the Washington Times National Edition which was in the subscriber's mail boxes this Monday, link to see it below my signature in this post. This ad is likely what triggered the need for a response by O'Reilly to provide cover for Obama. The Obama SSN fraud being in the print media, they now can no longer ignore it. Who knows ... Obama's operatives in the White House may have called O'Reilly and asked him to give them some cover, and fed him the phony father lived in CT story, and O'Reilly carried the water for the grifter-in-chief.

An additional statement and comment by CDR Kerchner (Ret):Is the Department of Homeland Security or Obama's National Security Advisers team telling all the major media talking heads and editors and leaders in Congress to keep the lid on this criminal activity by Obama and are suggesting that if it is exposed and Obama is removed as a criminal identity theft conman and ineligible under the Constitution and U.S. laws relating to selective service/draft registration laws, that Obama will not go quietly and that civil unrest would ensue .... like Obama called for in Wisconsin. Will Obama resort to street warfare and Saul Alinsky community agitator and union goon squad operatives rioting in the streets to stay in office? Is O'Reilly and others being told the only way to avert rioting in the streets is to lie to and deceive the American people about Obama's true legal identity and cover up his ineligibly and criminal activities all his life? If the talking heads, press editors, and Congress people are falling for such whispers and briefings coming out of the White House or their departments, they are making a very very big mistake. The truth and the Constitution is the glue that holds this country together. Continued lying to the American people will tear us asunder. Every month the grifter-in-chief remains in the Oval Office and in command or our military forces results in the ultimate resolution getting worse. Expose the usurper now and defend our Constitution. 95% of the American electorate will stand up to defend the Constitution if told the truth. The anarchists can be handled if they take to the streets in the city. Fix the fraud now, not later when it will only get worse. Congress stopped the cowardice and appoint a special prosecutor! O'Reilly, stop the deceit and lying to your viewers. Tell the world you were deceived and start reporting the truth and stand with the Constitution, not against it.

Who is the Arizona Secretary of State and does anyone know if this person has a good understanding of the definition of a natural born citizen, which is a person born in the country to citizen parents?

Full video of O'Reilly telling falsehoods and obfuscating during his email segment on Wednesday evening to protect Obama now at YouTube - O'Reilly's Scrubbed Mailbag Segment On Obama's Social Security Number - 4/13/11. O'Reilly has been in hiding since he told the whopper and the other obfuscations.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29cTXzfWloY

The April 16 edition of The Arizona Republic has a series of aritcles dealing with the Arizona eligibility bill. The lead article on the front page is entitled "'BIRTHER' BILL faces legal hurdles."

Not one of the articles considers the definition of natural born citizen except in a cursory manner. Referencing a previous bill that required candidates to swear that their parents were Amarican citizens, the article said the bill was dropped after lawmakers questioned the definition of natural born citizen.

A legitimate question was raised regarding state eligibility bills by Paul Bender, an Arizona State University constitutional law professor. He said,

States have no authority whatsoever with regard to presidential elections.

I would be surprised if he did know the putative definition of natural born citizen. If you have read my previous posts, you will understand my reason for saying this. The defintion of natural born citizen is never explored in the main stream media or for that matter by our elected officials.

If you have read the responses of the many Congressmen who have been queried about Obama's eligibility are there any who have actually acknowgedged that he may not be a natural born citizen? Most have answered that they are sure Obama was born in Hawaii and is therefore eligible.

I just left this answer at Yahoo Answers at http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110416054543AAHUTRP:

Obama natural born citizen?

The Founders and Framers demanded that future presidents be born with no allegiance to any foreign power and therefore loyal and attached only to the United States. They therefore demanded that future presidents be a "natural born Citizen."

A "natural born Citizen' was well-defined in natural law and the law of nations upon which the Founders and Framers heavily relied in the early years of our young Republic.

Relevant historical materials such as Emer de Vattel’s, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758), tell us: “The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” Being born in the country to citizen parents allows a child to be born with no foreign allegiance and with loyalty and attachment only to the country of his or her parents.

Then we have Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875), which providing the same Vattelian definition without citing Vattel, and not in any way referring to the English common law, stated: “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.” Id., 169 U.S. at 679-80.

Then there is U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 708 (1898), which cited and quoted Minor and its definition that a “natural-born citizen” is a child born in the country to citizen parents. Wong then decided that a child born in the country to alien parents who were domiciled in the U.S. was a "citizen" under the 14th Amendment. Note the Court did not rule that he was an Article II "natural born Citizen" which the Court told us was defined by Minor. Rather, the Court told us that he was a "citizen" under the 14th Amendment. We know from Vattel and Minor that "citizens" can be the parents of "natural born Citizens" but are not necessarily themselves be "natural born Citizens."

Obama's father, a British citizen, was never a U.S. citizen. Hence, Obama was not born in the country to citizen parents. Because Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen, Obama, even if born in Hawaii which he has yet to conclusively prove, was also born with allegiance to and citizenship in Great Britain. Consequently, Obama was not born with no foreign allegiance and with sole loyalty and attachment to the United States. He was not born with sole allegiance and unity of citizenship in the United States at birth, a natural condition that the Founders and Framers wanted in future presidents and commanders in chief. He is not and cannot be an Article II "natural born Citizen." Under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, he is therefore not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief.

See the Rezko-Obama timeline in the above article and a link to a map that generates a Rezko-Obama Network Analysis Map by Muckey Map. Very revealing and interesting. When will the FBI and/or Congress launch investigations of the criminal activities of Obama and stop covering up for him and ignore the massive fraud and crimes Obama has perpetrated most of his life on others and now on the American nation and Constitution? Obama needs to be investigate soon and when he is, the perp walk out of the White House will not be far behind.

The far left progressives are playing a game of Catch 22 with the election system.

Before the election date of 2008 the Congress told people it is the state's job to vet the candidates. One court judge said it was up to Congress. Before the election date the courts said the case is moot because Obama may not win the election. Then after he won ... oops it's too late, he won the election. And then later of course in the infamous secret CRS Memo circulated secretly to members of Congress in April 2009, those lawyers said it is the responsibility of the states. Now that the states are doing something about this Catch 22 mess and gaming of the election and legal system by Obama and the progressives, now the far left progressives are saying ... nope it's not up to the states but up to the federal government to decide. Basically the bottom line of the far left progressives is that they don't want any rules or vetting. They want to let anyone run even if not a Citizen at all like the Socialist Party candidate Calero. The far left progressives want a pure democracy with no rules with 51% determining who the President and Commander of our Military is to be ... Constitution and fundamental law be damned from their point of view. A pure democracy is just a stepping stone to mob rule and that ultimately leads to a tyrannical nationalist socialist takeover to restore order. The is what the far left want. It's the end game of the Cloward-Piven Strategy. No rules, no Constitution except for what the few far left elite will dictate for the moment to suit their needs then change them 30 days later to suit that times need.

Read this essay about out Cloward-Piven Government in which Obama is driving the country into the end game to throw out the Constitution and install a national socialist new government in response to the calls from the mob rule of 51% to end the misery that Obama and his Obots are creating.http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/clowardpiven_government.html

Breaking News: Another Supreme Court Justice again discusses Natural Born Citizen term in the U.S. Constitution before the House Appropriations Committee of Congress | @ YouTubehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJyBXkno5lY

Kenyan MP James OrengoA Kenyan lawmaker told the nation's Parliament last month that Barack Obama was born in Africa and is therefore "not even a native American."During debate over the draft of a new Kenyan constitution, James Orengo, the country's minister of lands and a member of parliament for the Ugenya constituency, cited America's election of a Kenyan-born president as an example of what can be accomplished when diverse peoples unite:"If America was living in a situation where they feared ethnicity and did not see itself as a multiparty state or nation," Orengo posited, "how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the president of America?"Orengo held up the U.S. as a country no longer "living in the past," since Americans elected a Kenyan-born president without regard to "ethnic consideration and objectives."A new strategy has been unveiled to demand answers to Obama's eligibility questions. See how you can help.Debate is then recorded in the Kenyan government's official March 25, 2010, hansard – a traditional name for printed transcripts of a parliamentary debate – as continuing with no other MPs mentioning or attempting to correct Orengo's comments about Obama." http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1036160/pg1

Regarding that youtube clip about Jose Serrano's eligibility to be President, Serrano was born in Puerto Rico in 1943. The Jones–Shafroth Act of 1917 made all Puerto Ricans US citizens. Hence, I contend that Serrano is a natural born citizen, as he was born to US citizen parents on US sovereign territory (Puerto Rico). Serrano was not born with a foreign allegiance. Does anyone disagree?

The Supreme Court Justice then goes on to say that those who are not naturalized are natural born citizens. Technically he is correct, since naturalized citizens include adult naturalized persons as well as those naturalized at birth.

He then says that some people apply a broader definition and others a narrower definition to the term. Would a narrower definition exclude those naturalized at birth? Would a broader definition be like those proposals to allow naturalized adults to be eligible to be President after living in the US for 20 years?

Suppose someone is a natural born citizen. Then they fall into the situation that Obama was in as a child. His mother moved to Indonesia where Obama's step-father adopted him and got Obama his Indonesian citizenship. US law says that he needs to voluntarily give up his US citizenship to no longer be a US citizen.

So he comes back to the US. Would such a person be eligible if they were at one point natural born and never lost their US citizenship, but did gain Indonesian citizenship?

The answer to your question may be found in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Perkins v Elg 307 U. S. 325 (1939), which dealt with whether the Elg child lost her U.S. birth citizenship status because of the acts of her parents and not because of anything she elected to do or some treaty or Act of Congress.

The Court said:

"First. On her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States. Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27; Fourteenth Amendment, § 1; United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649. In a comprehensive review of the principles and authorities governing the decision in that case -- that a child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States -- the Court adverted to the "inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship." United States v. Wong Kim Ark, supra, p. 169 U. S. 668. As municipal law determines how citizenship may be acquired, it follows that persons may have a dual nationality. [Footnote 1] And the mere fact that the plaintiff may have acquired Swedish citizenship by virtue of the operation of Swedish law on the resumption of that citizenship by her parents does not compel the conclusion that she has lost her own citizenship acquired under our law. As at birth she became a citizen of the United States, that citizenship must be deemed to continue unless she has been deprived of it through the operation of a treaty or congressional enactment or by her voluntary action in conformity with applicable legal principles." Id. at 328-29.

Hence, the Court said that a U.S-born citizen who later in life acquires another nationality through the parents (making that person a dual national) does not lose his/her U.S. citizenship by that act alone. The Court said that, in the absence of some qualifying voluntary affirmative act by the child, treaty, or Congressional Act, children do not lose their U.S. birthright citizenship simply because their parents in later years and when the children are minors cause them to acquire some other nationality. The Elg Court acted to protect a U.S. born child's right of election as to what nationality he or she wants to be, a right that it said belongs to the child upon reaching the age of majority. So, what the Court said is that a “citizen of the United States” who is a minor will not lose that status simply because the child’s parents might do some act causing that minor to acquire another citizenship.

The parents causing that child to acquire some other nationality by way adoption would fall within that category of acts which would not cut off that child’s right of election to maintain his or her U.S. citizenship which right the child needs to exercise in some recognized way upon reaching the age of majority.

It is important to understand that Elg’s dual nationality came into being after her birth. In other words, she was born in the U.S. to citizen parents and so under the law of nations she was not born with any dual allegiance and nationality. That she acquired another allegiance and nationality after her birth because of the acts of her parents does not detract from her being born with unity of citizenship and sole allegiance to the United States which makes her an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

Based on the principles established by the Elg case, and in the absence of some treaty or Congressional Act, I do not conclude that Obama’s alleged adoption by Lolo Soetoro would have caused him to lose his U.S. citizenship if he in fact ever had any. The answer to this question could change if it is shown that some international treaty between the U.S.A. and Indonesia provides otherwise.

But while the Elg case goes in favor of Obama and his alleged adoption, it goes against him on the question of whether he is an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

Please call, email, or FAX the AZ Governor Jan Brewer and urge her to sign the presidential eligibility vetting bill into law which was recently passed by the AZ legislature, and to get it into law as soon as possible, effective this year. I have just made a call and sent a FAX to her office. Please do this today or tomorrow at the latest. Ask her to sign the bill ASAP. The bill must be signed by this Thursday per AZ's constitution, as I understand it. So let her know we want her to sign it to send a message to Washington DC that states are not going to let the U.S. Constitution be ignored even if the cowardly Congress and spin machine far left main stream media is doing that. Let her hear from us.

Jan Brewer:"I do not support designating one person as the gatekeeper to the ballot for a candidate, which could lead to arbitrary or politically motivated decisions," said Brewer, who was secretary of state until she became governor in 2009."

Well guess what Jan Brewer, you just approved condoned Nancy Pelosi and her gang of despicable traitors with their 'politically motivated decisions' as the 'gatekeepers'.

This is outrageous disregard & contempt for the US Constitution, what it stands for, and the Citizens of USA.

I can see a need to go to the very root of the WRONG definitions and principles of 'natural born' that stem from English common law, from whence the MISTAKEN adoption of jus soli as the only quality required for NB began.

A reading of Lord Coke's report of Calvin's case, which is the benchmark case where this notion of jus soli was derived, reveals that there were TWO ESSENTIAL qualities required to make a 'natural born'.

e.g.Lord Coke:

"There is found in the law four kinds of ligeances: the first is, ligeantia naturalis, absoluta, pura, et indefinita,42 and this originally is due by nature and birthright, There is found in the law four kinds of ligeances: the first is, ligeantia naturalis, absoluta, pura, et indefinita,42 and this originally is due by nature and birthright,...""Calvin the plaintiff, naturalized by procreation and birthright"

"that issue IS NO SUBJECT to the King of England, THOUGH HE BE BORN UPON HIS SOYL, and under his meridian, for that he was NOT BORN UNDER THE LIGEANCE OF A SUBJECT,..."

"There be regularly (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born. 1. THAT THE PARENTS BE UNDER THE ACTUAL OBEDIENCE of the king. 2. That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion. And 3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered;, etc, etc..."

In England the parents, even the alien born, were subjects simply by being under the 'obedience of the king'.

In USA the alien born parents are NOT citizens simply by being 'under the obedience' or in US terms, 'subject to the jurisdiction', they must either be citizens already or be naturalized, ONLY THEN are their children natural born.

The Rules

THE RULES:

This blog does not advocate resort to any violence in order to bring about political change. Rather, what we advocate is resort to zealous use of one's First Amendment right to "freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Please keep in mind this is a moderated blog. This is akin to a court setting and is not a wide open say anything you want, anytime you want, free speech zone like a soap box in a public square. If you want that type of forum you will have to go elsewhere. Keep your comments and questions in this blog's threads serious and focused on the subject and merits of this post. Unsubstantiated statements which are determined to be false and misleading, or even potentially misleading to others (the jury of public opinion reading this blog) as to the true facts, repetitive, argumentative, personal ad hominem attacks, defamatory statements, criticism or lobbying efforts for other attorneys and/or their cases, blog scrolling, advertising links, inappropriate links, disinformation campaigns, and/or off topic comments will likely not be posted. I also will not discuss in public specifics as to my planned tactics or strategies. I am the Judge in this blog and will rule on the merits, materiality, worthiness, etc., of all comments. My rulings on the acceptance or rejection of a comment are final. Please note that your comments will not appear immediately as I have to review them first. As I am busy working on various cases with my law practice, it may be several hours to 24 hours some days before your comment is reviewed and accepted and/or answered. Please try to stay on topic. The main focus of this blog -- the Obama Article II natural born Citizen eligibility issue and the historic Kerchner vs. Obama & Congress lawsuit. Thank you.